An Affect Theory of Social Exchange

Abstract

This article develops a theory that explains how and when emotions, produced by social exchange, generate stronger or weaker ties to relations, groups, or networks. It is argued that social exchange produces positive or negative global feelings, which are internally rewarding or punishing. The theory indicates that social units (relations, groups, networks) are perceived as a source of these feelings, contingent on the degree of jointness in the exchange task. The jointness of the task is greatest if (1) actors find it difficult to distinguish their individual effects on or contributions to solving the exchange task (nonseparability) and (2) actors perceive a shared responsibility for success or failure at the exchange task. The theory explicates the effects of different exchange structures on these conditions and, in turn, on cohesion and solidarity. Implications are developed for network-to-group transformations. This article develops a theory that explains how and when emotions, produced by social exchange, generate stronger or weaker ties to relations, groups, or networks. It is argued that social exchange produces positive or negative global feelings, which are internally rewarding or punishing. The theory indicates that social units (relations, groups, networks) are perceived as a source of these feelings, contingent on the degree of jointness in the exchange task. The jointness of the task is greatest if (1) actors find it difficult to distinguish their individual effects on or contributions to solving the exchange task (nonseparability) and (2) actors perceive a shared responsibility for success or failure at the exchange task. The theory explicates the effects of different exchange structures on these conditions and, in turn, on cohesion and solidarity. Implications are developed for network-to-group transformations.This article proposes an affect theory of social exchange. The purpose is to incorporate emotions as an explicit, central feature of social exchange processes. The article accomplishes this by (1) conceptualizing individual actors as emoting as well as cognizing, feeling as well as thinking, (2) treating emotions as internal reinforcements or punishments, and (3) Social exchange is conceptualized as a joint activity of two or more actors in which each actor has something the other values. The implicit or explicit task in exchange is to generate benefit for each individual by exchanging behaviors or goods that actors cannot achieve alone (Thibaut and Kelley 1959;Homans 1961;Emerson 1972b). The affect theory of social exchange expands the domain of exchange theorizing in two main ways. First, exchange outcomes-rewards and punishments-are construed as having emotional effects that vary in form and intensity. When exchanges occur successfully, actors experience an emotional uplift (a "high"), and when exchanges do not occur successfully, they experience emotional "downs" (Lawler and Yoon 1996). Mild everyday feelings, therefore, are intertwined with exchange. Positive emotions include e...

Does leader-affective presence influence communication of creative ideas within work teams?

“…Positive feelings embedded in positive affective presence will likely invoke approach behavioral tendencies associated with interpersonal rewards (Elliot, 2008;Lawler, 2001), while a lack of negative feelings will make avoidance behaviors less likely, so team members will be less concerned with minimizing risks and thus more prone to sharing their ideas.…”

“…Here, we propose that leader affective presence will interact with idea generation in predicting silence behavior, such that once individuals generate novel ideas they would be inclined to silence those ideas depending on the extent to which their leader has positive or negative affective presence. Our arguments are based on the idea that the affect leaders elicit in team members will influence strategies for verbal communication (Forgas, 1999), through shaping team membersÕ tendencies towards approach/avoidance behavior (Elliot, 2008), and by producing a work environment that is more or less conducive to voicing ideas (Lawler, 2001). …”

“…Elicitation of positive feelings across team members will also promote rewarding social interchanges among them (Lawler, 2001), further encouraging their sharing of creative thoughts. As such, silencing of creative ideas is less likely to occur when leader positive affective presence is high.…”

“…Negative affective presence will also inhibit social interchange within the team, because the negative feelings elicited in the team will reduce affective rewards from exchanges (Lawler, 2001), and thus discourage communication of ideas. Thus, we predict that the negative relationship between idea generation and silence will be weaker (i.e., with ideas more likely to be silenced) when leader negative affective presence is larger in magnitude (Hypothesis 2).…”

The Adaptive Rationality of Interpersonal Commitment

“…Moreover, people tend to keep exchanging with the same partner even if more valuable (or less costly) alternatives are available. Such commitments also imply forgiveness and gift-giving without any explicit demand for reciprocation (Lawler 2001;Lawler and Yoon 1993). People help friends and acquaintances in trouble, apparently without calculating present costs and future benefits.…”